UPDATE - LOWERING THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

September 2016
Heruntersetzung des MindestAlters -  bei Kriminellen Handlungen 
eine Attacke gegen die HUMAN RIGHTS!
Position Paper of the
PHILIPPINE JESUIT PRISON SERVICE FOUNDATION, INC.
on LOWERING THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

PHILIPPINE JESUIT PRISON SERVIC E
FOUNDATION, INC.
Ina ng A wa P a rish Com p ou n d, New Bili bid P riso n Rese rv ati on , Mu nti nlu pa Ci ty 17 76 , Philip pin es
Tel. (63 2) 710-1837 • Fax (63 2) 659-0513 •
Email: jesuitprisonservice@gmail.com
Many organizations and human rights advocates are once again challenged as the proposals to lower
the age of criminal responsibility is being considered in Congress. As of August 2016, constitutional
amendments to Republic Act No. 9344 have been filed lowering the minimum age of criminal
responsibility (MACR) from 15 years old to 9 years old.
We ask questions: Is this bill a reaction to criminal groups using children as their pawns in the enactment
of a crime? Is the bill to lower the age of criminal liability aimed at dissuading criminals to use children?
What is the purpose of this bill?
Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility will have not deter criminal minds from using or
forcing children to do the criminal acts. Lowering the minimum age of criminal liability will not increase
security among citizens. Lowering the minimum age of criminal liability will just embolden or taunt
criminals as they do not have any concern for the innocent young minds.
Let us be aware that children as low as 9 years old as still being formed. They are still being taught
about what is right and wrong, about the complexity of society, about their rights and responsibilities.
Even though they are being taught, the fact is people use them for their innocence; the fact is the
children are being misguided and forced to do criminal things by people who should know better. Why
imprison the children? Prisons are not places for children. To lock them up in adult prisons is to
condemn them to torture, sexual violence and solitude. 1 What does this intend to do? Is it not our
responsibility as adults to form our children and not judge them, to love them and not to hate them, and
to care for them and not to penalize them?
As we can see clearly that the criminal justice system in the Philippines, characterized by very poor and
inadequate facilities, inhumane conditions, inefficient handling and resolution of cases, among others,
has often failed for adult offenders and more so for children who have come into conflict with the law
(CICL). These children, who are likely to have experienced abuse and neglect in their own homes and in
their immediate environments, are now forced into harsh and dehumanizing situations within the adult
criminal justice system that expose them to further abuse and tarnish any hope for them to be
reintegrated into their families and communities and become responsible and productive citizens. 2
Even before arrest (Amnesty 2003), children who come into conflict with the law tend to represent the
most disadvantaged and marginalized sectors of society. Many are fleeing difficult home situations,
often exacerbated by abuse and poverty and resulting in an interrupted education.
We need to stop making children criminals. We need to assert the rights of every human being below
the age of 18 years. Criminalizing children causes persisting harm not only to the overall development of
1 Child Rights International Network. (2012). Brazil: Proposal To Lower Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility Back in Congress. Retrieved from
https://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/brazil-proposal-lower-minimum-age-criminal-responsibility-back-congresss
2 Save the Children UK. (2004). Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process, The Experience in the Philippines
(2004), retrieved from http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/3235.pdf
PHILIPPINE JESUIT PRISON SERVIC E
FOUNDATION, INC.
Ina ng A wa P a rish Com p ou n d, New Bili bid P riso n Rese rv ati on , Mu nti nlu pa Ci ty 17 76 , Philip pin es
Tel. (63 2) 710-1837 • Fax (63 2) 659-0513 •
Email: jesuitprisonservice@gmail.com • Website: www.jesuitprisonservice.org
DSWD- NCR RL 000094-2012 • SEC Reg. No. CN200718546 • TIN No. 006-927-154-000
many children but also of human societies. It encourages a spiral downwards by children into further
offending and increasingly violent offending which often extends into adulthood. It prevents societies
moving on by upholding lingering beliefs in original sin and the need to beat the devil out of children.3
The Philippine Jesuit Prison Service Foundation, Inc. (PJPSFI) opposes the proposal to lowering the
MACR. Instead, we strongly call for the strengthening the 4pillars of justice system and develop support
systems for children that will facilitate the reintegration of former CICL and prevention of offending or
re-offending.
This comes in the form of peer support groups—former CICL trained to become peer facilitators who
can reach out to other children at risk of offending in the communities. Adult volunteers from the
different communities provide the children with another level of support—monitoring of the progress of
former CICL who have been reintegrated into their families and communities, and awareness-raising
activities among parents and other significant adults on child rights and children’s justice issues.
Children’s justice committees composed of barangay officials, members of the lupong tagapamayapa
(village justice committee), community volunteers and other stakeholders conduct mediation sessions
and diversion.
In all decisions taken within the context of the administration of juvenile justice, the best interests of the
child should be a primary consideration. Children differ from adults in their physical and psychological
development, and their emotional and educational needs. Such differences constitute the basis for the
lesser culpability of children in conflict with the law. These and other differences are the reasons for a
separate juvenile justice system and require a different treatment for children. The protection of the
best interests of the child means, for instance, that the traditional objectives of criminal justice, such as
repression/retribution, must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with
child offenders. This can be done in concert with attention to effective public safety.5
3 Child Rights International Network. Making Children Criminals: https://www.crin.org/en/docs/Stop_Making_Children_Criminals.pdf
4 Save the Children UK. (2004). Breaking Rules: Children in Conflict with the Law and the Juvenile Justice Process, The Experience in the Philippines
(2004), retrieved from http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/3235.pdf
5
Committee on the Rights, General Comment No. 10, Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, 2007, para. 10